How might researchers ‘listen to culture’ in their quest for knowledge that involves Indigenous populations? Many Indigenous groups may argue that the hidden drivers of research activities remain anchored to Western oriented values, processes and motivations. In Aotearoa New Zealand, it is clear that adopting a partnership approach to research is now becoming more of the ‘norm’. As Aotearoa New Zealand approaches the third decade of the twenty-first century, culturally relevant and inclusive approaches to research need to be the policy of choice and must be the policy of necessity. Equitable research approaches to research must be at the core in the quest for scientific inquiry, social coherence and economic growth. This chapter explores some of the historical realities and a vision moving forward. To guide authentic and grounded approaches to power-sharing research endeavours, culturally grounded frameworks are also shared.

People, Aristotle once observed, by nature seek to know. To construct a meaningful world requires the conceptualisation of patterns in the environment, recognition of the rules that are both unstated and expressed in human social interactions, and sufficient confidence to engage in scientific inquiry so that new knowledge can occur. While Aotearoa New Zealand is a small player in the research world, it has particular strengths in areas of agriculture, health and earth sciences. The main entities that lead research development include universities, government organisations, research associations and consultancies, museums and scientific societies. There are 10 Centres of Research Excellence (CoRE) of which one, Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga, is New Zealand's Indigenous CoRE, hosted by the University of Auckland. Ngā Pae o te Māramatanga has, in recent times, been offering advice and guidance to the Royal Society Te Apārangi on Māori research imperatives. Te Apārangi is an independent, not-for-profit body providing funding and policy advice in the fields of sciences and the humanities. It would be fair to assume that in each of the research entities mentioned above interdisciplinarity and collaboration are being promoted and, for the most part, mātauranga Māori (Indigenous Māori knowledge) is being recognised and valued as integral to authoritative research being carried out. In terms of the presence of mātauranga Māori in research paradigms, many countries perceive Aotearoa New Zealand to be exemplary. However, wide and deserved the acclaim, we are not there yet. To be more correct, there is indeed more to do.

Discussions and debates over research agendas, equality, equity, inclusion, exclusion and so forth persist. Researchers hold different philosophies, values and worldviews, and as such the legitimacy of the discussions that differences can be integrated without chaos and confusion, remains an unproven assumption. Nevertheless, this should not obscure the possibility that there might be advantages in these differences being held or that possibilities of a positive kind might emerge from the bind. First, however, there are some myths to be dispelled.

Traditional Māori society, not unlike other Indigenous societies, valued high-level thinking and analytical skills, often evidenced in compellingly clear understandings of cosmology, geography and technology. Māori practices of producing resources made from flax, for example, require a precise knowledge of the physical properties of raw materials, their sources, their sustainability, the tikanga (customary practices) surrounding their collection and processing, and so on. A second example is the extensive and accurate knowledge of navigation garnered through successive generations of purposeful voyaging across the oceans to Aotearoa New Zealand. Similar to other Indigenous groups, Māori had to systematically research, trial and experiment with the qualities, properties, and habits of birds, plants and other natural resources in order to sustain life in both their new and previous environments. Many other examples can be offered but a common thread is that knowledge was acquired through active participation within culturally responsive and authentic learning contexts, with Māori scientific endeavours recorded and transmitted through song, symbol, story, dance and everyday practices (Macfarlane, 2012).

It is clear, however, that the scientific endeavours and knowledge of Māori and other Indigenous people, as well as their ways of transmitting this knowledge, have been, until recently, seldom evidenced in the professional practices imposed upon them from ‘outside’ systems. Consistent failure to understand Indigenous cultures has often been reflected in the absence of culturally appropriate forms of research responsivity. These anomalies continue to be perpetuated in education, health, housing, engineering and the like, by way of successive policies of assimilation, integration, multiculturalism and biculturalism. During the last 25 years, however, there has been reasonable indigenization of the research sector – both internationally and within Aotearoa New Zealand – whereby cultural epistemology is a salient, rather than an obscure, phenomenon. There has been an upswing in the use of Māori terminology, consultation with Māori tribal communities is largely a more galvanised process, and greater numbers of Māori scholars are participating or taking leading roles in research programs. What began as a cathartic and liberating epistemological revolution might now be described as moving in the direction of an embedded and rightful entitlement. A repositioning of the cultural emphasis in the research realm is beginning to occur. However, we are not there yet.

Traditional attitudes to knowledge have a direct bearing on contemporary research practices. Mead (2003) proposes that Māori were, until relatively recently, rarely involved in research activities that explored their own culture. They welcomed others to carry out the research, cooperated with them and then farewelled them. Mead acknowledges that those days are gone, and that new systems, ethics and expectations are in place. Tribal authorities are more aware that they play a pivotal role in the research issues, the range and types of information being sought, confidentiality clauses, and the gathering and dissemination of data. Māori would like to know the benefits, if any, that will accrue to the tribe. In his reflections on the tikanga (practices) of research, Mead writes that ‘ … . procedures and consultation need to be correct so that in the end everyone who is connected with the research project is enriched, empowered, enlightened and glad to have been a part of it’ (2003, p. 318). No distinctions are made about who experiences these impacts, with the inference that if research is tika (right or correct), then all – the participants, their whānau (extended family), the researchers, the community – will be left in a better place because of the research project in which they have been involved. Tied to these imperatives is the protection of the mana of the people, and, indeed, the mana of the researcher. Care is crucial, as is tikanga (the right or correct way to do things). There are Māori policy frameworks such as Vision Mātauranga (Ministry of Research, Science and Technology, 2007). In addition, there are practice frameworks (see Bishop & Glynn, 1999; Black, 2014; Cram, 2017), premised on Māori theory, that are offered to assist in the provision of pathways for culturally responsive practice (see Macfarlane, Macfarlane & Curtis, 2019).

A review of the literature and research specific to indigenous cultures worldwide indicates that they all have a common experience and a common cause (Gomez, 2007). Despite extensive diversity between indigenous cultures globally, they collectively share a history of domination, injustice and prejudice. Regardless of different geographic locations, they reflect universal chronicles and experiences, such as the confiscation of their lands, the demise of their languages, knowledge systems and practices, the loss of autonomy, disproportionate poverty, over-representation in poor health and educational outcomes, incarceration and marginalisation. Throughout the world's history, indigenous cultures have continually fought for the recognition of their identities, practices and traditions, including their right to retain their languages and resources (Collard & Palmer, 1984; Stavenhagen, 2005).

According to Champagne (2007), the unique philosophical, pedagogical and epistemological characteristics that define indigenous cultures are regularly in conflict with those of the dominant culture. The oral transmission of knowledge, values, customs and beliefs from one generation to the next has been an integral pedagogical aspect that defines indigenous cultures. This practice has served to retain and maintain a wealth of critical cultural knowledge over time; however, the oral/aural phenomenon that defines indigenous epistemologies is regularly dismissed and undermined by many dominant cultures who view indigenous knowledge and constructs as inaccurate, unscientific, baseless and inferior to the written word (Janke, 1999).

In spite of the relentless impacts of colonialisation and the continued dishonouring of their rights, many Indigenous cultures around the world have been equally relentless in preserving the very fabric of their cultural identity. Indeed, new generations have started reclaiming the legacies of their ancestors (Gomez, 2007). This cultural renaissance and revitalisation continues today despite the barrage of adversities. There is a common battle for self-determination by Indigenous people around the world who are now seeking to have greater participation in current organisational structures (including education, health, economics), specifically in reclaiming their rights to participate in governing, decision-making processes, and informing the theoretical underpinnings of professional practice approaches and research design and implementation. For Māori, the struggle for autonomy has been progressed in large part by commitments that were agreed to when a Treaty partnership agreement, the Treaty of Waitangi,¹ was signed in 1840.

A rethinking of conventional research practices really made its mark with the publications of Linda Smith's seminal work, Decolonizing Methodologies (Smith, 1999, 2012). Many passages in the books have proven to be formidable challenges to researchers, Indigenous and non-Indigenous. Smith has prompted researchers to explore Māori and Indigenous epistemology as fact, as ideology, as practice and as critique. Her contentions cover various frames of reference including interpersonal, intertribal, institutional, national and international. She exposes inherent ambiguities and debunks the delusions that declare that the West knows best. Indeed, the West has been made to ponder more seriously about engaging with diversity, and the political and cultural outlooks that shape the postmodern era in which differences between people are recognised and rewarded simply because they exist. The breaking of a new epistemological dawn has challenged conventional notions of order, universality and hierarchy on the grounds these try to impose a contrived uniformity on a changeable and oftentimes, irregular world (Li, 1999). According to Eisenstein (1996), disparities in opinion like this should come as no surprise: in societies historically organised around principles of conformity, rationality, consensus and control, appeals for diversity tend to be dismissed as disorderly and disruptive. While contradictions still abound in this climate, it appears that growing numbers researchers – when guided, scaffolded and supported with practical tools – are more amenable to ‘listen to culture’ and to adopt a research framework(s) that justifies an excursion into a non-ambiguous domain that has cultural relevance.

A new dawn heralds that culturally relevant approaches to research need to play a major function in today's global patterns of knowledge seeking. Culturally relevant research requires making sense of these patterns through Māori lenses so that the various parts hang together, become more coherent and enable meaning making to emerge with more clarity and fairness. Aotearoa New Zealand's multicultural society, predicated on biculturalism, is attempting to take such steps, in particular within contexts where researchers are required to plan and work within spaces where cultural imperatives are not included as an ‘add on’, but surely as a complementary and meaning-enhancing reality. Culturally relevant approaches to research advocate for inclusiveness wherein Indigenous ways of knowing and doing are valued. This is critical because minimisation of culturally relevant approaches within conventional research contexts creates the potential for the continuing inability of many researchers to truly understand the social and psychological realities of Indigenous cultures’ experiences. The lack of attention to adopting culturally relevant research approaches also has the potential to inhibit transformational outcomes that are beneficial to and for Māori. This situation has been put on notice in recent times and moves have been made to put matters to right. It seems timely to get bold about advocacy for cultural relevance in research and one avenue would be to take an inclusive route, one that draws from two streams of knowledge in a quest for better outcomes.

He Awa Whiria ² is an innovative framework that draws inspiration from Indigenous and Western streams of knowledge, while maintaining a consciousness of Māori data sovereignty. Western knowledge and theory, although fundamentally sound, are culturally bound (Durie, 2006), and can therefore not be transferred directly into another (Indigenous Māori) culture. Durie proposes that ‘it is necessary to make a plea for an interdependent and innovative theoretical space where the two streams of knowledge are able to blend and interact, and in doing so, facilitate greater sociocultural understanding and better outcomes for Indigenous individuals or groups’ (p. 52). He refers to harnessing the energy from two systems of understanding in order to create new knowledge that can be used to advance understandings in two worlds.

Cogitating on Durie's proposal, Macfarlane, Macfarlane and Gillon (2015) suggest that it is inappropriate to seek solutions to Indigenous challenges solely from within Western knowledge streams and hold that a blending of Indigenous and Western bodies of knowledge creates an approach that is potentially more powerful than either knowledge stream is able to produce unilaterally (see ).

A Steering Group formed by Superu, a Social Policy and Evaluation and Research Unit run by the Crown, made some astute observations of the braided rivers metaphor, noting that both streams start at the same place and run beside each other in equal strength. They come together on the riverbed and they move away from one another. Each stream spends more time apart than together. In the framework, when they do converge, the space created is one of learning, not assimilating (Arago-Kemp & Hong, 2018). also illustrates that inherent within the He Awa Whiria framework is the recognition of Indigenous knowledges and a space for Kaupapa Māori research as a distinct stream. In this autonomous stream, Kaupapa Māori researchers engage with critical issues in ways intended to impact on Māori advancement.

Kaupapa Māori approaches to research are based on the assumption that research that involves Māori people, as individuals or as communities, should set out to make a positive difference for the researched. This does not need to be an immediate or direct benefit. The point is that research has to be defined and designed with some ideas about likely short-term or longer term benefits. Obvious as this may be, it has been indicated earlier in this paper that Indigenous people have oftentimes not seen the positive benefits of research. A Kaupapa Māori research approach also has to address seriously the cultural ground rules of respect (mana tangata), of working with communities (mana ūkaipō), of caring for and feeding people (ira manaaki). Kaupapa Māori research also incorporates processes, such as networking, community consultations and whānau research groups, which assist in bringing into focus the research issues that are significant for Māori. In practice, all of these elements of the Kaupapa Māori approach are negotiated with communities or groups from ‘communities of interest’. It means that non-Māori involved in the research program have to share their ‘control’ of research and seek to maximise the participation and the interest of Māori. In many contexts, research cannot proceed without the project being discussed by a community or tribal authority.

The He Awa Whiria framework is further complemented by two other systems – IBRLA a long-standing and influential model introduced by Russell Bishop (Bishop, 1996), and Poutama Whakamana, a scaffolding schedule designed by Sonja Macfarlane (Macfarlane, 2018). Together, the IBRLA model and the Poutama schedule are able to guide, scaffold and support the culturally relevant research journey. The IBRLA format consists of five components (Initiation, Benefits, Representation, Legitimation and Accountability) that guide researchers through a culturally relevant process. A set of reflective questions accompany each of the five IBRLA components and are presented so as to encourage researcher reflection during the conceptual-design research planning phase, as well as to support researchers to monitor and evaluate their progress, both during and at the conclusion of the research activities. Bishop asserts that the research initiatives that involve and affect Māori need to be guided by members of the Māori community, with the opportunity to determine, from the outset, if benefits will accrue for Māori should the initiative proceed. To that end, the IBRLA model is able to guide how power-sharing relationships are established, even before the initiative begins.

In traditional Māori meeting houses (known as wharenui), walls are frequently adorned with mirror-imaged panels – referred to as Poutama Tukutuku – stepped patterns that depict a series of steps that climb upwards from both sides to reach the top at the centre. A poutama has the potential to offer both spiritual and educational meanings. Māori regularly draw on this classical metaphor to encapsulate ways of knowing, being and doing; consequently, the poutama represents a journey of growth and development in order to attain greater knowledge and understanding. The steps symbolise levels of attainment, learning, advancement and insightfulness. So how might a poutama be used to guide and inform culturally relevant research planning that is focused on envisioning the potential of Māori, as espoused by the Vision Mātauranga³ policy document? He Poutama Whakamana (see ) is to be applied as an aspirational schedule for tracking (and scaffolding) researcher and research progress. It has been developed as a means of drawing on the threads of information presented previously, by identifying four imperatives that are deemed to be of significance to preparing research proposals and carrying out plans that seek to encapsulate the intent of Vision Mātauranga:

• Kaitiakitanga (K): Guardianship: Ensuring that the Treaty principles are upheld

• Mātauranga (M): Knowledge: Envisioning the innovative potential of Māori knowledge

• Tikanga (T): Protocols: Employing culturally responsive research methodologies

• Rangatiratanga (R): Leadership: Embodying an equitable leadership approach.

He Poutama Whakamana informs the researchers of culturally relevant progress. At each of the three levels, it is proposed that these four imperatives be addressed when planning research activities that include Māori phenomena – e.g. people, perspectives and sites. The scaffolding process starts at step 1 (Mōhiotanga), with researchers needing to have an open mind and a desire to explore new learning and knowledge as a prerequisite to embarking on research that involves Māori phenomena. Step 2 requires researchers to actively explore new knowledge (Mātauranga) and enhance their own understandings about how the research planning needs to progress. Step 3 is the stage of enlightenment (Māramatanga), and it is where researchers plan to integrate and apply their incrementally acquired knowledge and understanding into the planning. When researchers have attained Māramatanga they are aware of the impact that the three Treaty of Waitangi principles have on the research process. At this juncture, they are more poised to understand that Māori knowledge and ways of knowing, being and doing are critical to the research objectives, they insist on implementing a research design that embodies and employs approaches that are culturally relevant, and they ensure that Māori leadership is palpable throughout the entire research process.

He Awa Whiria serves as a reminder that at stake in the research communities of Aotearoa New Zealand, and beyond, is the need to rethink the meanings and practices associated with the changing face of research conventions. There is also a need to carefully assess some of the major research themes such as structure, rationality, manageability and leadership, because simply giving the appearance of acceptance of reviewed approaches is not enough. Assessment of the themes leads to responding to the themes and this often means venturing into research spaces that may push boundaries and test others’ views. And, this takes courage. However, if the creation of new thinking and practices will lead to improved outcomes, then the benefits outweigh the costs.

A cautious optimism is in order when considering the contribution that the modestly innovative He Awa Whiria framework might make. All frameworks, models and assessment schedules we would argue come with strengths as well as weaknesses, depending on the context or criteria. When the context and criteria are Māori, it cannot be taken for granted that it be accepted for what it is. Although He Awa Whiria has been adopted and adapted by several Ministerial bodies, National Science Challenges, Consultancies and doctoral scholars, it is evolutionary, not revolutionary.

Advances in terms of ‘listening to culture’ notwithstanding, some might warn about the age-old adage ‘appearances can be deceiving’. Others might claim that the hidden agendas of research remain anchored around Western orientated values, structures and institutions. Most might declare that Māori and Indigenous progress has had its share of twists and turns. Stumbling through darkness and running through breaks of light, persistence and a reasonable quantum of mutual understanding on the part of both Treaty partners have supported the laying of foundational structures while conveying the impression of change and accommodation. While marginalisation has a bad habit of sneaking through the back door, oppression of the cultural integrity of Māori no longer has a place. Culturally relevant and inclusive approaches to research seem to be the policy of choice and must be the policy of necessity as Aotearoa New Zealand approaches the third decade of the twenty-first century. This country cannot afford to dismiss culturally relevant and inclusive approaches to research in its quest for scientific inquiry, social coherence and economic growth. In short, we deserve kudos for advancing, incrementally, the concept of a progressive and tolerant national research community at the fringes of global change.

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

1 The Treaty of Waitangi: an bicultural partnership agreement that was signed in 1840 between Māori (the indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand) and the British Government (the Crown).

2 A full account of the He Awa Whiria framework is in a Position Paper in booklet form. The booklet can be accessed through the University of Canterbury Child Wellbeing Institute https://www.canterbury.ac.nz/childwellbeing/ or the MĀORI Research Lab Te Rū Rangahau http://www.education.canterbury.ac.nz/research_labs/Māori/.

3 VM Vision Mātauranga is a policy framework developed by the Ministry for Research, Science and Technology in consultation. A pdf booklet is available on the website of the Royal Society of New Zealand Te Apārangi website https://royalsociety.org.nz/what-we-do/funds-and…/marsden/…/vision-matauranga/.

• Arago-Kemp V, Hong B. 2018. Bridging cultural perspectives (February 2018). Wellington: Superu. 
• Bishop R. 1996. Whakawhanaungatanga: collaborative research stories. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press. 
• Bishop R, Glynn T. 1999. Culture counts: changing power relations in education. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press. 
• Black T. 2014. Te koko ki Ōhiwa: the surge at Ōhiwa. In: T. Black, editor. Enhancing mātauranga Māori and global indigenous knowledge. Wellington: New Zealand Qualifications Authority; p. 12–27. 
• Champagne D. 2007. Social change and cultural continuity among native nations. Plymouth: Altamira Press. 
• Collard L, Palmer D. 1984. Looking for the residents of Terra Australis: the importance of Nyungar in early European coastal exploration. Perth, WA: Murdoch University. 
• Cram F. 2017. Kaupapa Māori health research. In: P. Liamputtong, editor. Handbook of research methods in health social sciences. Singapore: Springer; p. 1–18. 
• Durie M. 2006. The Treaty of Waitangi: domestic relations, global impacts and a New Zealand agenda. Seminar delivered at the Treaty Debate Series 2010. Wellington: Te Papa Tongarewa. 
• Eisenstein Z. 1996. Hatreds: racialized and sexualized conflicts in the twenty first century. New York: Routledge. 
• Gomez N. 2007. Healing hidden wounds. Cultural Survival Quarterly. 31(3):3–15. 
• Janke T. 1999. Our culture, our future. A report on Australian cultural and intellectual property rights. Sydney: Frankel & Co. 
• Li PS. 1999. The multiculturalism debate. In: P.S. Li, editor. Race and ethnic relations in Canada. 2nd ed. Toronto: OUP; p. 148–177. 
• Macfarlane A, Macfarlane S, Curtis T. 2019. Navigating kaupapa Māori fields of knowledge. Oxford Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods in Education (with publishers). 
• Macfarlane S. 2012. In pursuit of culturally responsive evidence based special education pathways in Aotearoa New Zealand: Whaia ki te ara tika. PhD Thesis. Christchurch: University of Canterbury. 
• Macfarlane S. 2018. Vision Mātauranga: National Science Challenge 1 [Presentation notes]. Christchurch: University of Canterbury, School of Health Sciences. 
• Macfarlane S, Macfarlane A, Gillon G. 2015. Sharing the food baskets of knowledge: creating space for a blending of streams. In: A. Macfarlane, S. Macfarlane, M. Webber, editor. Sociocultural realities: exploring new horizons. Christchurch: Canterbury University Press; p. 52–67. 
• Mead HM. 2003. Tikanga Māori: living by Māori values. Wellington: Huia Publishers. 
• Ministry of Research, Science and Technology. 2007. Vision Mātauranga: unlocking the innovation potential of Māori knowledge, resources and people. Wellington: Ministry of Research, Science and Technology. 
• Smith LT. 1999. Decolonising methodologies: research and indigenous peoples. Dunedin: University of Otago Press. 
• Smith LT. 2012. Decolonising methodologies: research and indigenous peoples. 2nd ed. London/New York, NY: Zed Books. 
• Stavenhagen R 2005. Indigenous peoples: an essay on land, territory, autonomy and self-determination. Available online at Land Research Action Network (LRAN) website: http://landaction.org